FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Abandonment of promotional panel.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July 2004, as part of a rationalisation plan, the then Secretary/P.A. to the Director opted for the Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme (VER). This resulted in a Grade 4 vacancy within the clerical administrative stream. A competition to fill the vacancy took place and the successful applicants were placed on a panel. A member of the Union was successful in this competition and was placed on the panel. The panel commenced in October 2002 and, as is customary in Teagasc, was to run for 2 years.
Prior to the expiry of the 2 year panel in October 2004, the HR Department announced the setting up of a new panel to fill a number of Grade 4 vacancies resulting from restructuring and the moving of HQ to Carlow. The Union wrote immediately to management expressing their concerns about the integrity of the existing panel. Management proceeded with their action.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd February, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th May, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management unilaterally breached its customary agreement by not allowing the agreed 2 year panel to run its course.
2. Although Management argued that the post had changed, a close analysis of the duties and functions showed that the post had largely remained the same.
3. The change of location on its own is not good enough reason to abandon a panel prior to its expiry date.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The panel that expired in October 2004 was established on the basis that the post concerned would be in Dublin. The decision to relocate justified the readvertisement of the post.
2. It would have been inappropriate to fill the post of Personal Secretary to the Director based on an old administrative structure, and an expired panel for a post based in a different location.
3. Management met its obligation to fill the posts through internal competition.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that at the time the disputed vacancy arose and at the time at which it was advertised a valid panel was in place from which the vacancy should have been filled. The Court cannot accept that there was any justifiable reason for abandoning that panel before it expired.
The Court notes that immediately after the intention to advertise the post was announced it was disputed by the Union and the appropriate procedures were activated. Nonetheless the employer proceeded to fill the post on a permanent basis outside the panel while its right to do so was being actively challenged through the appropriate disputes resolution procedures.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded and that the worker in question be paid the salary which she would have received had she been appointed to the post in September 2004. This salary should be retained on a personal to holder basis.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th May, 2005______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.